The North Henderson Residents’ Association (NHRA) has examined with interest the commendable and well researched pamphlet of the RSTV criticizing the necessity for secondary treatment of sewage. The NHRA is in agreement with the RSTV position and is glad to have our notice on the subject posted on the RSTV web site.
The North Henderson Resident's Association (NHRA) had intended to raise the matter in this notice at the C.R.D. meeting on 19th August. Speakers for this meeting were required to register. The NHRA tried to do so but was informed remarks had to be restricted to consideration of the sites only. We were disappointed at this narrow decision and restriction.
The following are the NHRA reasons for opposition to Secondary Treatment:
1. Absence of evidence that the work is required.
Scientific studies have shown there is minimal environmental damage with the present long outfall system. The latest C.R.D. report concludes there is minimal damage to the sea floor and zero damage to fish and whales. The Scripps Oceanic Institute in the U.S. has found long outfalls work well and a British Royal Commission study showed long outfalls are preferable to short outfalls even with secondary treatment.
2. The large costs involved for all levels of government at a time when the senior governments are running deficit budgets and there are significant cutbacks to such government services as health and education. We should remember that agreement by senior governments to participate in the costs of secondary treatment predate the recession. They should welcome a chance to reduce their commitments. If funds must be spent to stimulate the economy let us at least do something productive. Upgrading failing municipal infrastructure is one justifiable need.
3. At the municipal level it has been estimated there will be an annual cost to Oak Bay taxpayers of $700 ±, a significant amount to residents.
4. Our present system causes minimal environmental damage but the proposed system will have a large environmental impact due to massive construction, extra pumping, moving, processing sludge etc. The situation after an expenditure of $2 to $3 billion is likely to be worse than we now have.
5. Construction for secondary treatment will, as we are already aware, impact neighbourhoods and create NIMBY conflicts, something we would like to avoid.